Minimum Playoff Size Need, Part II

After doing the first four years of this I took a break, but I've finally returned to it.

To start this one off I want to discuss my purpose and process for a moment. This is not a pure numbers survey, that's the bailiwick of The Mathlete. My goal is to approach the championship saying "What are the fewest teams that have a resume that entitles them to have a shot at the national championship?". So my human bias as an author does creep in.

One thing I want to stress, if I'm trying to do this from a need based approached. What is the minimum number of teams we need. Where can we draw a line and say: Everyone on one side of this line has a resume weaker than the people on the other side. Not what we as fans want to see. Basically if at the end of the season we do resume voting for just that season, how many teams took care of business in the regular season and should have a shot at holding the crystal ball.

To recap the results from last time, I found the people on the stronger side of the line was:

1998: 4 teams

1999: 2 teams

2000: 4 teams

2001: 4 teams

From that review I suggested that a four team playoff looks like the minimum you need. I did not find a season where you had a 5th team with a resume that made them worthy (although we come close in 1998 with A&M). I also did not find a season where you'd have trouble finding 4 teams to round the playoff out (although 1999 comes close when you have to settle for two loss Wisconsin or Alabama as the 4th, both teams choked on a cupcake and the #3 team only has one loss).

From the above as I go I'm using the hypothesis that: "In any given season you can eliminate two of the six auto qualifying conference champs and have a nice four team field." As I go forward I'll see if this gets supported or rejected and what the rising strength of the MWC does to this (because then I'm looking at rejecting 3 from 7 instead of 2 from 6). At least Notre Dame always sucks, so I don't have to worry about them.

2002/2003 BCS:

Championship Game: #2 Ohio State defeats #1 Miami

Who Else Had A Claim:

Miami: Finishes the season 12-0. So they are undefeated and get the immunity idol. Miami beats two ranked teams in conference play and two ranked teams in OOC play (FSU and Florida). That's a nice schedule and they come out undefeated.

Ohio State: Undefeated as well. They defeat one ranked team in OOC play (Washington State) and three ranked Big Ten teams.

ACC: Maryland finishes ranked #13 and 11-3. The lose to ranked FSU teams and lose to an unranked Notre Dame squad in their season opener. That Notre Dame squad though finishes 10-3/#17 though. Florida State actually wins the division despite being 9-4. FSU goes 7-1 in division play (losing to NC State). Three of FSU's four losses are to good teams (Miami, ND, and NC State). NC State also finishes the season 11-3 and ranked, with losses too Georgia Tech, Maryland, and Virginia.

I can't really see arguing how anything out of this mess of teams has a resume to compete with a pair of undefeated conference champs. So I'm discarding the ACC

Big 12: Oklahoma finishes off the season 11-2 and wins the B12. They get five ranked wins over four teams (had to play Colorado twice) and losses to A&M and OSU. Some years this would be enough, but not in a year with two undefeated teams that each have four ranked wins.

PAC10: A 10-2 WSU and a 10-2 USC end up at the top of the conference. USC loses to WSU and a ranked KSU early in the year. WSU loses to Ohio State, Washington and then gets defeated by OU in the Rose Bowl. The PAC10 is like the ACC, where multiple teams had a chance to seize the day, win out, and finish the season with a good resume. They did't though.

SEC: Georgia wins the SEC, but a lose in Nov to #22 Florida robs them of an undefeated season. They end the season with four wins over ranked teams and defeat FSU in the Sugar Bowl for a fifth ranked win.

Independents/MWC: TCU and ND have decent years. The Domers beat four ranked teams but do trip against Boston College and lose to USC. TCU destroys almost everything in its path, but chokes on San Jose State (and loses its bowl game to Southern Mississippi). TCU's weak MWC schedule definitely haunts them here, along with the fact that two other teams go undefeated.

The Verdict on 2002:

This could have been an ugly year for selection. Maryland, FSU, NC State, OU, USC, Georgia, Washington State, Notre Dame, and maybe even TCU all end the season a couple of scores away from having the resume needed to play in the BCS Title Game.

The BCS is saved from too much controversy thanks to Miami and tOSU finishing out with four ranked wins each and no losses. Had either of those teams lost, then Georgia has a claim. In a four team system that would leave OU and Washington State with about equal claim to the fourth game. Notre Dame is right behind them (although through the transitive property WSU > ND). I'd also imagine some people making a case for the one loss TCU, but they do lack ranked wins.

This is a results based system though, so I'd say the final ruling is two teams.

Nice ink Maurice.

2003/2004 BCS:

Championship Game: #2 LSU defeats #1 Oklahoma

Note: This was the year the AP gave the title to USC and the 21-14 snoozefest of LSU vs OU.

Who Else Had A Claim:

Oklahoma: Didn't actually have a claim. They didn't win their conference. They defeat three ranked teams in conference play, but lose to #12 KSU in the title game (KSU 35, OU 7). If you don't win your conference, you don't play for the national title. So OU is gone.

LSU: Defeats 4 ranked teams, but losses by 12 points to an unranked Florida team. Florida ends 8-5 and ranked at the end of the season, so that doesn't look too bad. Winning the SEC and only have one loss is fairly good, but lets see if anyone has anything better:

ACC: Florida State loses to a ranked Miami team (twice, they had to play them in their OOC schedule and in the Orange Bowl, urgh). FSU also loses to Clemson by 16 points (Clemson ends the year ranked). The following week they need 2 OTs to beat NC State (who finishes 8-5 and unranked). FSU's only ranked win is over Florida. FSU also beats Maryland early in the season before Maryland is ranked (Maryland finishes 10-3). So FSU finishes with two losses, but they do beat the team that beats LSU. Lets see what other conferences have to offer in their champion.

B12: A three loss KSU (complete with a loss to Marshall) beats OU down in the championship and wins the conference. But two of KSU's three losses are to unranked teams. Their third is to a ranked Texas outfit. They also beat ranked Nebraska and OU. What else do we have.

Big East: Miami finishes the season with losses to Tennessee (10-3, #15) and and Virginia Tech (8-5). They do beat Florida who in turn had beaten LSU.

Big Ten: Michigan finishes off the year with two loses. A four point loss to Oregon and a three point loss to Iowa. We defeat five ranked teams and then lose by two scores to USC. A 10-2 Ohio State finishes off the season ranked ahead of us, but we beat them so we have the tie breaker. As a side note I still remember chanting: "Capitol One Bowl!" at the tOSU fans as they left. Anyway Michigan finishes with two losses to ranked teams (although Oregon does not finish the reason ranked) and wins over five ranked teams (although by the end of the year MSU was not ranked).

PAC10: USC is a soulless killing machine, aside from Cal. They lose to Cal early in the season (in triple OT). Their biggest problem is a weak schedule. Their ranked games are Auburn and Washington State. Plus of course a two touchdown victory over a Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Independents/MWC: A two loss Utah. They lost to Texas A&M and New Mexico State. They defeat a ranked Oregon (Oregon does not finished ranked). Considering the resumes of the other conference champions, I'm not really high on Utah.

The Verdict on 2003:

This whole season is a mess. LSU has the strongest resume, but it really doesn't separate them from the pack. After them you have a mess of teams like USC with only one loss, but only two ranked victories. Then there is Michigan at two losses but more ranked victories. Miami, KSU, and FSU all have slightly weaker resumes in terms of ranked teams defeated, but they aren't terrible.

This is definitely a season where people with different criteria will select different teams. Personally I'd say three teams have legit claims: LSU, Michigan, and USC.

Note: The Big East gets much less impressive starting this year, due to the good teams bailing to the ACC.

ACC: Virginia Tech finishes off the season 10-2. They open the season against USC and only loss by a single touchdown. They also lose by one point to an unranked NC State team (who finishes 5-6). They defeat ranked WVU, Virginia, and Maryland teams. They lose to Auburn by 3 in their bowl game. A solid showing all around, although two loses are not so good when you have multiple undefeated teams in play.

Big East: Four conference co-champions. Including a 6-6 Syracuse (4-2 in conference play) team. I'm sorry but when a 6-6 is conference co-champ, no. Just no. (9-3 Boston College is the best of the lot).

Big Ten: Michigan finishes off 10-2. Losses to Notre Dame (who goes 6-6) and to Ohio State (who finishes up ranked but 8-4 overall). When we play them Purdue and Minnesota are ranked, but they do not finish the season ranked. We defeat an unranked Iowa who does finish the season ranked. Michigan losses to Texas by one point. We're in the same boat as Virginia Tech.

SEC: Auburn is undefeated. They beat four ranked teams in the regular season and a fifth in their bowl. All ranked teams are in the Top 15.

Independent/MWC: Utah is undefeated. They do not play a ranked team.

The Verdict on 2004:

If you had just two undefeated teams, this would be easy and a year you only need two to settle it all up. As it stands you have a clear Top 3 of USC, OU, and Auburn. following them up you have Utah (Point: They are undefeated. Counterpoint: They played a shit schedule) and the two loss ACC and B10 teams (Point: Stronger schedule than Utah. Counterpoint: Two losses a piece).

So I'm calling three as the final verdict here in terms of where I can draw the line of "everyone after this line has a weaker resume".

Any excuse to link to Marlin Jackson

2005/2006 BCS

Championship Game: Texas defeats USC

Note: USC's official record for this is now 0-1. Alabama also gets itself in trouble and now as a record of 0-2. Ah vacated wins…

ACC: A four loss FSU team wins the ACC championship game. Had VT taken care of business a 10-1 VT team would have emerged from the ACC as the victor. Instead a four loss team does. No sale on FSU.

Big East: WVU is in fine form with a special someone at the helm. They lose to Virginia Tech early in the season (who finishes out 11-2 for the year). WVU suffers from three issues. First they start the season unranked. Secondly they lose a game early on, which means they are not ranked until the first weak of November. Finally the only ranked team they play is Louisville. They defeat Georgia in their bowl by three points.

Big Ten: Penn State finishes off 11-1. So close, yet so far. They defeat three ranked teams but loss to an unranked Michigan team (who finishes up 7-5). Thank you Super Mario.

SEC: Georgia wins the SEC with two losses. Both were to ranked teams. Georgia defeats four ranked teams. As a side note, had LSU won the SEC Title game, LSU would have come out of the SEC with only one loss and wins over four ranked teams.

Independent/MWC: TCU opens the season strong with a win over ranked Oklahoma. They then lose to SMU the following week. They play no one else who is ranked and finish off the season with a three point win over Iowa State in their bowl.

The Verdict on 2005:

Once again the BCS benefits from the fact only two teams went undefeated. You have someone drop a game here or there and suddenly selection gets really ugly really fast.

Final verdict is two.

Super Mario

The Summary So Far:

1998: 4 teams

1999: 2 teams

2000: 4 teams

2001: 4 teams

2002: 2 teams

2003: 3 teams

2004: 3 teams

2005: 2 teams

It appears every year you never have more four conference champions who cannot be separated from the others by the virtue of their resume. It so far you can throw out at least 3 of the 7 (counting the MWC).

What is different in this set of years though is when we have three teams there is now a problem selecting a fourth. In 2003 there is three times basically tied for fourth. The same in 2004. In 2002 and 2005, had one of the undefeated teams lost, a can of worms also would have been opened.

If we have a 4 team playoff:

In 2002 and 2005 there are multiple teams who can point to the teams that got the #3 and #4 seeds and complain they are equal to thos eteams. In 2003 and 2004 there are multiple teams who can point to the team that got the #4 seed and complain.

If you want complete fairness you go with a 6 team playoff to avoid this. The other possible response is to say to WVU: "Why yes you are comparable to PSU/Georgia However your resume is not comparable to that of USC or Texas. If you wanted to avoid getting screwed by the polls, go undefeated like Texas/USC did." It all depends on what you like.

If you go with a 6 team playoff:

This era (2002 through 2005) goes a lot smoother. However…

In 1999/2000 you're letting in two loss teams from the Big Ten and SEC as your 4 and 5 seeds. Your sixth seed is likely #10 Marshall, the undefeated MAC champion (Stanford wins the PAC with 4 losses). In 2000/2001 you're letting less three loss teams from the Big Ten and SEC in to your playoff. Ugh. (Or you're recycling teams who game in second in their conference.)

If you go above 6:

You're likely letting all those teams who choked in their conference championship back in. There aren't enough quality opponents coming out of the smaller conferences to really flush out a bracket, so some teams are getting a second shot. At that point we're not allowed to be outraged about Alabama getting a do over, but we can be outraged about not getting a do over against tOSU. Pick your poison on that one.

Also the 1999/20001 bracket and 2000/2001 brackets would look terrible.

Closing Up:

I still have 2006 to the present to go, but so far is is what I'm seeing from the review:

A 4 team system works better for the first four years. It keeps you from having to seeding pretty bad teams into the playoff or seeding in people who did not win their conference.

In the next four years, a 4 year system does not leave a conference champ with a really strong resume out in the cold. It seems you can draw a cut off point at the #2 or #3 seed and say "Everyone who comes after this team has an inferior resume." You then end up with multiple teams squabbling for that last spots. A six birth playoff solves this.

Comment viewing options

I agree with you that if you don't win your conference, then you shouldn't be picked above a team with a simlar resume, but clearly most voters thought OU was the #1 team that year. While they should be the 1 seed, they probably could be considered the 4 seed if you need a 4th team. It beats selecting a 2-loss team over a 1-loss team.

It seems like you are having a hard time finding a 3rd or 4th team in some years because they have one more loss than the top 1-3 teams. If you consider a 6-team tournament, like Brian's, including those 2-loss teams is ok because in order for them to win the championship, they have to defeat 3 top 6 teams and the 1-loss teams have to sustain another loss. That evens out the losses and gives the 2-loss team a better resume than every other team.

I mentioned this to Seth when he did something like this. The way that I would go about this is to look for multiple distinct cut offs each season, not just one. Then, you can say "well 2 and 6 work best in this season, but 4 and 6 work best in this one". Then you can sum up the number of times that each number would work well. I'd bet that you'd see 4 or 6 come up a lot. You'd probably see a lot of the seasons where 3 teams makes 4 work that 6 or 8 would also work, or if you have 2 teams that 4 or 6 would work as the second cutoff.

Those are just my thoughts. I figured I'd pass them along as constructive criticism. I do enjoy reading these, though, as it's something I've thought about doing myself, but don't have time for.

You seem to assume that if there is a 4-team playoff, the four teams need to have won their respective conferences.

That practically guarantees you won’t be picking the four best teams. I know there are people who didn’t like the idea of Alabama getting a second chance to beat LSU. But by any intelligent reckoning, Alabama had a conspicuously better resume than any other Big Six conference champion except Oklahoma State.

I don’t think that’s unusual, either. Some years, one conference will have two teams with better resumes than most of the other champions. That is just how it turns out sometimes.

The objective should be to find the n best teams, full stop, where n is the size of the playoff field. Granting auto-qualifying status to conference champions is simply an invitation to letting teams in that aren’t really the best.

I see a core difference between your perspective and the perspective of some others, including myself.

You want the playoff to determine the best team in the country. I want the playoff to determine the national champion. And there IS a difference. The best team in the country is the team that we feel would beat any other team in a hypothetical matchup. The national champion, however, rewards the team that had the best season.

And here's where the difference lies. We start with the assumption that there is ONE TEAM that had a season better than anyone else's. If there is no such team, then ANY playoff system will be unsatisfactory. The team that had a better season than any other team will have necessarily won the conference championship, because if that were not the case, we could name a different team that had a better season, namely one that won its conference championship. So necessarily, all teams in the running for the "best season" (ie those in the playoff) will have won their conference championship if what we're looking to reward is a good season, not a good depth of talent and coaching.

In regards to your comments and joeyb's about teams getting a second chance, I see the rule of "you must win your conference" as a feature. Others will see it as a bug. To me with the rise of conference title games (all the AQ's but the B12 should be ending up with one once the dust settles) the title game because a specialize round of the playoffs.

It's a specialized one where you are required to deal with any sibling who might challenge you. OU needs to take care of KSU, etc. If you can't do that, no title for you. I like it because it makes college football's playoff unique. Plus if say the +1 system happens (which seems to have support from the various conference heads over any other playoff system), the conference title games kind of serve as a pseudo third round.

Basically it makes the checklist to play for a national title to be: Win your division, win your conference title game, and have a good overall resume. It shifts some of the power of the polls out of the system and focuses a bit more on results on the field (the polls can't save you from failing to win your conference like they can now).

Yes the system can feel harsh when a team chokes in the conference title game, but that's life. If you kow up front you need to win your title game and don't, it is on you.

The regular season is the equivalent of a conference tournament in basketball. I cannot stand the second (or last chance) nature of playing a whole basketball season, and then getting another shot at it. I know, I know, regular season game ratings feed torunament selection and seeding, but why did we waste our time on a regular season? And then there is the third shot by making a bloated NCAA tournament field. This is why I watch few basketball games until March Madness. Not much really matters before then. (Unless it is beating Sparty, or Duke or something.)

College Football is different: they really can't play games forever, so a do or die regular season to win your division, followed by a do or die conference championship game, followed by a do or die major bowl, to get to a NC game creates a compelling, must see every game product.

Problem: we have five major football conferences and Notre Dame. If we had four, then this is easy (except for where do you play the SEC versus ACC or Big 12 bowl). This problem keeps the door open for ND to remain independent, and other "deserving" non conference champion teams to get second chances or non-BCS conference teams to get a chance at all (i.e., there will always be arguments about that last seat or two in).

we have to ask ourselves is: "what do we want to accomplish with a playoff?"

If we want the luckiest team then a playoff will be just fine. However, if we want the "best" team, a playoff will be a disaster. All we have to do is to look back 2 weeks. There is no doubt that everyone agrees that "Bama is the best college team.

However, if we had a 4 or 6 team playoff taken only from conference championships, 'Bama does not get in. Then we DONT have the best team we have the luckiest team.

I still advocate an eight-team playoff with the higher rated teams playing games at their home stadium.

If this setup was applied now, the five major conference champions (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12, SEC) would get autobids provided those teams were in the top 14 of the ranking system used (this is the current threshold for getting into a BCS bowl game). If a conference didn't provide such a team, an additional at large program would be picked.

In the time period you're covering, I'd be inclined to include the Big East as a conference with an autobid at least for the first year or two based on the condition above (the Big East lost Miami, Boston College and Virgnia Tech to the ACC). By and large, this setup means the top 8 teams in the BCS usuallly play one another with few exceptions.

If you want to translate regular season success into the post-season, then give the top four conference champions the 1 thru 4 spots in the championship bracket and let the other one (or two) conference champions compete with the at-large team.

IMHO, the idea behind the playoff is to ensure that the teams who truly belong in it get a chance at the national championship. There might be discussion around whether or not the seventh or eighth-seeded team "belongs", but the system also ensures that those programs which may have barely lost a conference championship or lost early and rebounded later in the season get an opportunity to play for the NC title.

Let's take the 2005/6 season as an example. Here's the eight teams that would be taken based on the criteria I set up above with five teams from the major conferences (Top 14 and higher minimum) plus three at large and using the BCS standings:

1. USC (12-0, Pac Ten Champion)

2. Texas (12-0, Big XII Champion)

3. Penn State (11-1, Big Ten Champion)

4. Ohio State (9-2, Big Ten At Large)

5. Oregon (10-1, Pac Ten At Large)

6. Notre Dame (9-2, Independent At Large)

7. Georgia (10-2, SEC Champion)

8. Miami-FL (9-2, ACC At Large)

Although Florida State (8-4) won the ACC championship game, its #22 ranking in the BCS prohibits it from participating in the playoff and the next best at-large team (Miami-FL) takes its slot.

Now if we slot the four highest conference champsions 1 thru 4 in the playoff (thus allowing them to at least play their opening games at their home stadiums), then this is what the first round of games will look like (conference champions marked by asterisks):

#8 Miami-FL (9-2) at #1 USC* (12-0)

#5 Ohio State (9-2) at #4 Georgia* (10-2)

#7 Notre Dame (9-2) at #2 Texas* (12-0)

#6 Oregon (10-1) at #3 Penn State* (11-1)

While USC and Texas probably would likely have won the first two rounds of the playoff set up above and met in the national champsionship game, the eight-team playoff does give the Big Ten and SEC conference champsions a shot at the national championshp along with the four best remaining at large teams. That certainly doesn't happen under the current system and wouldn't happen in a Plus One system because Big Ten runner up Ohio State (9-2) was ranked higher than SEC Champion Georgia (10-2).

Finally, from a fan's standpoint, this is a pretty strong slate of games that would be played at the home stadiums of the higher ranked teams in late December and at a neutral site sometime during the second week of January. All of these are well known programs, there would be high ratings for television and because it broadens the pool of teams in the post-season, it keeps the regular season more interesting for more teams and the current system or the Plus One.

Lastly, of course, there is a sufficient inventory of really good teams available for the major bowls with a system setup like this. While the Big Ten (9-3 Wisconsin) and Pac 10 (9-2 UCLA) might not be the most exciting, the other bowls have a bunch of one- and two-loss teams to choose from, including West Virginia, Virginia Tech, TCU, LSU, Auburn, Alabama and Texas Tech, for example. I suspect the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar Bowls would be happy with the majority of those teams.

4 teams, 3 of which are conference champions from an AQ conference, and the 4th is either a non-AQ team like Boise St. 2009 or TCU 2010, or a 2nd place finisher in a conference like Alabama 2011. Stipulation that if 2 teams are in from the same conference, they HAVE to play each other in round one.

So for 2011:

1. Alabama (at large, SEC #2) vs. LSU (SEC #1)

2. Oregon (PAC-12 #1) vs. Oklahoma St. (BIG 12 #1)

Likely NC Game: Alabama vs. Oklahoma St.

For 2003 (because it's the most recent year when I can put Michigan in):

1. Michigan (BIG 10 #1) vs. USC (PAC-10 #1)

2. Oklahoma (at large, BIG 12 #2) vs. LSU (SEC #1)

Likely NC Game: USC vs. LSU

For 2010 (because it happened not too long ago and I remember the order in which people were ranked):

1. Wisconsin (BIG 10 #1) vs. Auburn (SEC #1)

2. TCU (at large, non-AQ) vs. Oregon (PAC 12 #1)

Likely NC Game: Auburn vs. Oregon

For 2009:

1. TCU (at large, non-AQ) vs. Alabama (SEC #1)

2. Cincinnati (BIG EAST #1) vs. Texas (BIG 12 #1)

Likely NC Game: Alabama wins...just not sure who they play. Both teams in the bottom game were underwhelming...

Does this scenario solve everything? No. But it only adds one game, which makes it realistic.

College football has been expanding on several fronts for many decades now. There are more teams now than ever in Division 1-A aka Football Bowl Subdibision or FBS--there will be over 120 in a few years' time. Additionally, we can talk about conferences with larger memberships, bigger budgets, larger (and remodelled) stadiums, more television coverage, greater college salaries, etc. Perhaps the only shrinkage we've actually seen is the number of scholarships (now at 85) that's been offset by freshman eligibility and early enrollees.

Realistically, yes, we might see another six-year contract put forth to run a Plus One option for the BCS that will take us to 2020. But once that deal is over, I imagine it will be fairly inevitable that we'll get to an eight-team playoff for a number of reasons:

1. The current stakeholders in the BCS system--exemplified by Jim Delany--won't be in a position to influence the decision making process. The leadership for college football (and sports) is going to come from other individuals, such as current Pac 12 Commissioner Larry Scott who may well be presiding over a 16-team conference when 2020 rolls around anyhow.

2. The major conferences are getting bigger. In the near terms, the five major conferences will have 62 teams with only one not having a conference championship game. Add in Notre Dame and Brigham Young among those teams and you have 64. When (not if) the Big XII gets back to 12 teams, that number will go up to 66. All those conferences are going to want to ensure that at least one team from its ranks gets into a playoff--that's something a four-team championship won't do regardless of the set-up. If we go to 16-team conferences (which is Larry Scott's vision or the Pac 12), then the conference championship games might become de facto playoff games for a multi-team playoff.

3. The current system is leaving college football fans--the people who watch the games and buy the tickets--pretty apathetic in terms of the post-season (unless you happened to be an LSU or Alabama fan this year). Adding two more teams will help alleviate the apathy, but the general public wants a playoff and they want a system that is basically fair and incorporates all the teams that have a strong chance of winning the national championship. A conventional Plus One this year would have added a second team that didn't win its conference (Stanford) and a conference winner who didn't play in a conference championship game (Oklahoma State) while leaving out champions from the two larger conferences in FBS (Wisconsin from the Big Ten and Oregon from the Pac 12).

Conversely, if you only go with conference champions, then you leave out teams like Alabama (which actually won the BCS conference championship) and Stanford--two programs that had a single loss against top competition during the regular season. In your 2011 example above, you include Alabama, but leave out Stanford--I don't think most observers would think this is a very good set up and you know Jim Delany (or any B10 commissioner) wouldn't like to see the B10 champion Wisconsin excluded from the national championship opportunity.

The reason why an eight-team champsionship will eventually emerge is that it gives all the major conferences a chance at the playoff (via their champion) while adding three to four of the very best teams who didn't get into the playoff. If the you want the maximimum number of stakeholders to buy into a system (including the fans themselves), then you go with eight teams, not four.

Delany has said that once you go to four, he fears it'll creep up to eight and even sixteen teams. I agree with him to a degree--it will eventually get to eight. I'm quizzical about the idea of sixteen teams getting in because that would absolutely gut the bowl system of the types of teams that the major bowls need to attract television, bring tourists to the bowl locations and to sell tickets.

... we can agree on the top four, then a playoff of four seems reasonable. But that's a big "if" ... because if the field is relatively limited (in your case, 4) then the debate becomes the validity of the measuring stick.

People complain about the BCS formulation, but that at least tries to balance human polls with number crunching computers. And there were teams left out of the top four some (many?) would argue were the better teams ... notably, Oregon.

I would hate to see a scenario where some all-powerful committee could disregard the final polls and simply select who they thought were the best four teams. Because bias would creep into that committee.

Come up with an objective formula of human and computer polls. Put a stake in the ground -- the top four go into a playoff. Don't like the result? Then tweak the formula for the next year. But please let's not see a case where SEC teams with three losses are deemed "better teams" and get in over teams with no losses.